So we might accept that others live lives quite divergent from our own, on the condition that they do not obligate us to do as they do. Acceptance of divergent lives does not imply agreement or obligation. This maintains moral consistency: one can uphold their own values while ethically recognising the legitimacy of other ways of living. — Banno

I really, really like this. It doesn't fit with most takes on the topic we see about these parts, but I like it.

Cheers.

So do you accept the concomitant differentiation between acceptance and tolerance?

Yes, but only semantically. In practice, they don't come to different places in the context of the thread. In the context, I think tolerance relies on acceptance. Which may simply be an error in the way the public does things. That said, I see the right wing doing more tolerance without acceptance than the left, for whatever that's worth. It seem the left can't tolerate that which they cannot accept, on some level.

Yes, but only semantically. In practice, they don't come to different places in the context of the thread. In the context, I think tolerance relies on acceptance. Which may simply be an error in the way the public does things. — AmadeusD

Right:

A core problem on the left is actually an equivocation where they want "tolerance" to mean "acceptance." Once one recognizes that tolerance does not mean acceptance, and that tolerance implies dislike or aversion, much of the muddle coming from the left dries up. — Leontiskos

That said, I see the right wing doing more tolerance without acceptance than the left, for whatever that's worth. It seem the left can't tolerate that which they cannot accept, on some level. — AmadeusD

I would say that the right is more tolerant and the left is more empathetic. The left is also more disagreeable (e.g. murdering people for speech with which they disagree), and therefore lacks both tolerance and acceptance. The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant.

Yeah, i mean "accepting" homeless people will always seem more virtuous than "accepting" a view about say, protecting the public from them. I just don't think they need compete.

- Indeed. :up:

I would say that the right is more tolerant and the left is more empathetic. — Leontiskos

I assume you are referring to the American "left" and right"?

The left is also more disagreeable (e.g. murdering people for speech with which they disagree) — Leontiskos

Can you provide examples of this? It seems an unfounded statement.

The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant. — Leontiskos

This does beg a discussion of the parameters of tolerance. Are all things equally worthy of tolerance? Is tolerance always a virtue? Is intolerance always a vice?

Should we be tolerant of hate?

Every ideology that gains power and dominance in a culture will be intolerant of any position that jeopardizes its survival. This is why the less popular a dominant ideology is the more tyrannical it has to be in order to maintain power.

In terms of liberalism vs. traditionalism, it depends on the flavor you are comparing which is more or less tolerant of opposing doctrines. The unique aspect of liberalism is that it also ruthlessly persecutes its perceived enemy ideologies but under the guise of tolerance itself; so they tend to be blinded to their intolerance, irregardless of whether or not it is permissible or right to be intolerant in such manner.

I find that the most interesting aspect of liberalism is this susceptibility to hiding behind a mask---saying one thing and doing another. They fight racism by becoming racist (e.g., affirmative action, "you can't be racist to a white person because they are the majority", etc.); they fight sexism by being sexist (e.g., "your a man so you can have no opinion on abortion", "force women to be more represented in engineering, etc.); they resolve theft with theft (e.g., retributions to black people for slavery); etc.

Liberalism is the first ideology that triumphs by purporting the exact opposite of what it is---most notably by imposing a liberal ethic under the guise of secularism.

Is liberalism more tolerant of views it does not accept than traditionalism? I don't think so: they are just as ruthless in persecuting their perceived opposition as traditionalism is. This is natural and by no means immoral; but it doesn't get acknowledged by liberals because they think they are incredibly tolerant because they accept as many views as possible.

CC: @unimportant

I keep seeing "right winger" as "right whinger".

Lol. Right-wing politics isn’t usually a form of white supremacy, if that is what you are insinuating. The liberal media likes to label everyone who is conservative that is white a white supremacist, while ignoring the non-white conservatives, as a weak rhetorical tool to make people avoid, out of fear, looking into the topic.

For example, look as Nick Fuentes in the United States right now: he’s booming in popularity right now and all they keep doing is labeling him a white supremacist when he clearly isn’t. It’s all rhetorical games to avoid losing a liberal America; and this also happens a lot in Europe.

Racism, we don't accept, but tolerate

Who’s “we”? Certainly not liberals. Liberals in America will go out of their way to cancel someone culturally so badly that they get fired from their job if they do something so, dare I say, “horrible” as say the n-word; and european liberals are so intolerant of racism that they throw people in jail or prison for comments that are taken as racist.

When some people get into politics too far, they start to think 'their side' is more intelligent, empathic, and generally superior than the other. This leads to intolerance. You start getting more narrow minded and thoughts like, "The right are full of bigots" or "The left are full of morons". In reality, it is YOU becoming a moron. Ego is one of the greatest destroyers of an intelligent and open mind.

I talk to everyone. I've spoken to racists, homophobes, sexists, genderists, and people who think the other side should all just die. I've spoken with sexual reprobates, socially inept people, arrogant demeaning people, wealthy, middle class, and poor people. — Philosophim

:fire:

This is why you are a rarity among the human race, Philosophim; and I respect that. Freedom of speech and rational dialogue is essential to a flourishing nation; and we seem to be forgetting that in modern times.

:fire:

I’m don't know if there are moral facts or if morality is grounded in anything beyond emotional responses, perhaps emotivism is correct, of which, presumably, there are more and less defensible versions. — Tom Storm

Then, why should anyone care about what you think is moral or immoral if it is just your emotions speaking? Why would society, that is supposed to be predicated on rationality, inform its legal codes based on your emotions?

So we have the supposed paradox of tolerance; that the left, in advocating "tolerance", is hypocritical in not tolerating the right - in not tolerating intolerance. — Banno

Intolerating intolerance is intolerance; and this is a convenient way to try justify ruthlessly persecuting any views you deem threaten the viability of liberalism while simultaneously rejecting that you are persecuting anyone (since it is just 'intolerance of intolerance'). It's a classic liberal cop-out to me.

Why can't both sides just admit that any ideology that they deem too immoral is not tolerated? Let's just be honest about it.

Is tolerance always a virtue? — Questioner

One of my favorite quotes by Lewis: "Tolerance is a virtue to the man that lacks convictions".

[

Then, why should anyone care about what you think is moral or immoral if it is just your emotions speaking? — Bob Ross

That’s right. Perhaps they shouldn’t. But the interesting thing is society likes to set codes of conduct to organise behaviour if it wishes to avoid anarchy and terror. Most people care enough about this and share emotional reactions to the same things. Do we need any more than this?

Seems to me this is how society already functions. We don’t agree on moral foundations but we also don’t want to be robbed and killed.

Other folk might not care about your opinion, but presumably you do.

And if your aim is to decide what you ought do, then who's opinion will you trust?

I assume you are referring to the American "left" and right"? — Questioner

That's a good question. Yes.

Can you provide examples of this? It seems an unfounded statement. — Questioner

I was referring to the example of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another recent case was the murder of Brian Thompson.

This does beg a discussion of the parameters of tolerance. Are all things equally worthy of tolerance? Is tolerance always a virtue? Is intolerance always a vice? — Questioner

I'll just quote what I said in my first post:

Once one sets out what they mean by "intolerance" and what counts as "more intolerant," the question becomes answerable. For example, if we take "intolerant of X" to mean "does not allow X," and we measure relative intolerance quantitatively, then we merely need to count up the different things that each group is intolerant of. Of course a quantitative analysis will probably be insufficient, but you get the idea. — Leontiskos

I was referring to the example of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another recent case was the murder of Brian Thompson. — Leontiskos

if you look at the whole picture, we should also include Melissa and Mark Hortman.

And statistics actually show the majority of politically-motivated murders have been committed by right-wing extremists. (Murder and Extremism)

Also, according to the Anti-Defamation League:

Extremist-related killings in recent years have primarily been committed by far-right extremists. Mass shootings caused a substantial portion of those deaths.

The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant. — Leontiskos

Could it not be that the left is indeed more tolerant of difference?

Also - in what context are you using "litigiousness"?

if you look at the whole picture, we should also include Melissa and Mark Hortman. — Questioner

That's fair, but what did we see in the wake of such things? Was there widespread support for the murderer of the Hortman's from the right? Heck we even had a TPF mod implicitly supporting the murder of Charlie Kirk.

And statistics actually show — Questioner

I wouldn't accept the ADL as a reliable source.

Could it not be that the left is indeed more tolerant of difference? — Questioner

I pointed you to my post about criteria. What are you criteria for intolerance? How are you measuring?

Also - in what context are you using "litigiousness"? — Questioner

I am just thinking about the general quantity of lawsuits emerging from each side.

You know, I'm not sure if that was a bait-and-switch or just moving the goal.

Was there widespread support for the murderer of the Hortman's from the right? — Leontiskos

They just mostly ignored it.

Heck we even had a TPF mod implicitly supporting the murder of Charlie Kirk. — Leontiskos

I don't believe this. I've seen a lot of people, though, try to remind others of what Charlie Kirk actually stood for, without justifying the violence, in the wake of the Administration making a martyr out of him for political reasons.

I wouldn't accept the ADL as a reliable source. — Leontiskos

Why not?

And if so, please provide a source that rebuts it.

What are you criteria for intolerance? — Leontiskos

I am intolerant of anyone interfering with another's right to "life, liberty, and happiness."

I am just thinking about the general quantity of lawsuits emerging from each side. — Leontiskos

Well, currently there is a right-wing president in the White House and he is the most litigious president in history.

They just mostly ignored it. — Questioner

Which is odd, because all signs point to it being left wing in-fighting. You can buy whatever you want about it - what I buy seems reasonable to me.

There is decidedly more events of left wing violence. Raw deaths are on the right, though. A distinction that matters. The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will. Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life.

They are not telling anyone how to live their lives. Only the right wing does that. They have the more rigid ideology, which expects everyone to conform to their beliefs. Any dissent from that is seen as moral failure. — Questioner

Well, to play devil"s advocate and precisely what I meant in the OP, that is exactly what the Right are saying the Left do, in the form of 'wokeness' and demanding everyone use new genders to refer to people and such.

Though I would say that the super wokies are not representative of the majority on the Left, however the closed mindedness you point out on the Right is probably more prevalent. I say probably as I have not bothered to think about it much but in general the Right are less 'tolerant' of other's ideas as a fundamental part of the party/political views whereas that is not the case with the Left. The authoritarian wokeness trend seems a more new phenomenon, I would trace back to the 70s, where it started with noble goals but become 'runaway' ideology with finding more and more things to be outraged about just for the sake of adding fuel to the movement rather than it being legitimate injustice.

In my experience, having lived in both camps at various times, the issue comes from what people mean when when they talk about intolerance. I would argue the right side of the aisle uses a more traditional meaning of the word, putting up with things they may not like because they have to, while the left seems to want tolerance to mean acceptance and celebration, which is not the same thing.

I would add that the reason for this is imo is likely because the left has been quietly winning most of the cultural battles for some time now, and is no longer used to having to tolerate dissent to the degree the right has in recent years. I suspect 50 years ago things were very different.

Well said

Which is totally reasonable. For about 100 years liberal (meaning politically liberal rather than conceptually "classic liberal") policies have been needed (this, purely in my view) to counteract what have reasonable been seen as arbitrary inequalities and harms that could be avoided without anyone else being harmed (i.e reducing the effects of racist thinking only helps minorities and doesn't harm racists in any meaningful way).
It's having missed the boat on when we got somewhere workable that's caused the flip, I think. Being used to being 'on the right side of history' no pun intended, seems to be where the left has gained its psychopathy. You're now allowed to be openly racist to white people, publicly, even in parliaments and senates - no issue. That is a problem. We shouldn't - tolerate - it.

Agreed, and part of what I find so frustrating about the current political situation. Everyone still seems to want to play by rules for a game that isn't what anyone is playing anymore. All the talking points are out of date, but everyone still wants to be smug like 20 year old, irrelevant gotchas are conversation enders.

In my experience, having lived in both camps at various times, the issue comes from what people mean when when they talk about intolerance. I would argue the right side of the aisle uses a more traditional meaning of the word, putting up with things they may not like because they have to, while the left seems to want tolerance to mean acceptance and celebration, which is not the same thing. — MrLiminal

Yeah, that's a clean way to get at it. :up:

I would add that the reason for this is imo is likely because the left has been quietly winning most of the cultural battles for some time now, and is no longer used to having to tolerate dissent to the degree the right has in recent years. I suspect 50 years ago things were very different. — MrLiminal

True, and I also think the left has been more proactive in pursuing cultural influence. A lot of the ideologies of the left are oriented to such a thing in a way that the right has not been.

You're now allowed to be openly racist to white people, publicly, even in parliaments and senates - no issue. That is a problem. We shouldn't - tolerate - it. — AmadeusD

Yeah, and it's causing a lot of rippling problems.

For about 100 years liberal (meaning politically liberal rather than conceptually "classic liberal") policies have been needed (this, purely in my view) — AmadeusD

Why differentiate political liberalism from classical liberalism on this point? Aren't they the same with respect to your example of opposing racism?

True, and I also think the left has been more proactive in pursuing cultural influence. A lot of the ideologies of the left are oriented to such a thing in a way that the right has not been. — Leontiskos

I think this used to be true, until around when Obama won and the "demographics are destiny" folks convinced people they didnt have to try anymore. Meanwhile the right started plugging away at changing their image and taking a more grass roots approach at times. Ironically, the Democrats are arguably the conservative party now, because they want to conserve what we already have from some of the regressive changes the Republicans want to make